Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Again, how is it possible to bend a thing that isn't a thing?
Again, you haven't explained how a difference in the readout of two clocks that experienced different inertial reference frames is not just a difference in two clocks.
Again, how is it possible to bend a thing that isn't a thing?
What is the difference between an object and a property?
Back up a second. So if something is not an object, it's not a thing? Is light an object? It's a thing. We can even count the particles hitting a detector.
Is gamma radiation an object? It is a detectable thing.
Is gravity a thing or a property? Or is it both?
But it does no good to answer your questions if you don't confirm that you understand these terms. So ... again ... what is the difference between an object and a property? Or, if you prefer, what is the difference between bodies/particles and their properties?
"Object" is the typical philosophical term used for a thing.
So here we are. Which, if any, of these fits your definition of "object?"
In a more restricted sense, an object is something that can have properties and bear relations to other objects. On this account, properties and relations (as well as propositions) are not included among objects, but are explicitly contrasted with them, as falling into a different logical category. Sets and universals are also perhaps not objects on this account.
Time is not an object ...
Therefore, I would allow for both material (physical) objects and abstract (immaterial) objects.
In that sense, then, all the fundamental particles of physics are objects.
I think the problem is not evolution (adaptation to changes, genetic changes, mutations, etc.) but the evolution of species (an animal evolving from one species to another).Well, scientists have not been able to recreate life, so we can't prove, using science, how life started. But evolution can be proven because bacteria evolve immunity to drugs over time.
I think the problem is not evolution (adaptation to changes, genetic changes, mutations, etc.) but the evolution of species (an animal evolving from one species to another).
It is real evolution. A bacteria evolves to become resistant to an antibiotic (that resistance is passed down). Birds evolve to possess different charactistics (again, passed down to another generation).Most creationists have now conceded the observed fact of speciation. Most now admit that new species, genera, and sometimes families of organisms appear from existing ones. They just say that it's "not real evolution."
And space and time become objects.
Then we will depart from English usage ...
You must be aware that words have multiple meanings. There is not one singular English usage. So here we are.
What then are the properties of space-time?
If you don't use words as they are commonly used, that's a problem in communication.
It is distorted by mass and velocity, for one.
Those aren't properties.
Remember, a property can be measured in terms of some SI unit.
Yes, that is a property of space time. It can be distorted by mass and velocity.
Not as we defined it for this thread. We're making a distinction between properties (something intrinsic to the body) and relations (something extrinsic involving other bodies).
J_B_ said: ↑
Remember, a property can be measured in terms of some SI unit.
ID was initially intended to be a legally-defensible way to insert creationism into public schools. This ended in what ID inventor Philip Johnson called a "train wreck" in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.
...
Although the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book, directly replacing references to creation science and creationism, after the 1987 Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds.[13] From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,[14] advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula.[7] This led to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, which found that intelligent design was not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the public school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
ID has had a rocky path since, with some, including Philip Johnson ( at least initially a creationist) saying that perhaps the designer was "a space alien." Discovery Institute fellow Michael Behe now says that he accepts evolution, even though he thinks God has to step in now and then to make it work.
And another Discovery Institute fellow, Michael Denton seems to have become a deist in his book Nature's Destiny, breaking completely with creationists in an explicit way:
t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science–that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called “special creationist school.” According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God’s direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world–that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.
In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton Nature's Destiny p. xi
This erosion of creationists to deism is an ongoing problem, possibly accounting for the noted decline in number of evangelical Christians in the United States.
Naturalism is a faulty assumption on which to base conclusions.
Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Macro-Evolution are the three big background models of our age but not proven facts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?